Biological explanations: An historical approach Flashcards
what did Lombroso suggest
Lombroso suggested criminals were ‘genetic throwbacks’ - a primitive species who were biologically different from non-criminals.
A biological approach
Offenders were seen by Lombroso as lacking evolutionary development. Their savage nature meant they would find it impossible to adjust to the demands of civilised society and would inevitably turn to crime.
Lombroso saw offending behaviour as a natural tendency rooted in the genes of those who engage in it.
Atavistic form
Lombroso argued offender subtype could be identified by particular physiological markers that were linked to specific types of offences. These are biologically determined atavistic characteristics that make offenders physically different from the rest of us.
examples of atavistic form
- Narrow, sloping brow
- Strong prominent jaw
- High cheekbones
- Facial asymmetry
- Dark skin
- Extra toes
Lombroso also suggested other aspects including: insensitivity to pain, tattoos and unemployment.
Offender types
Lombroso categorised particular types of offenders in terms of their physical and facial characteristics.
Murderers = bloodshot eyes, curly hair, long ears
Sexual deviants = glinting eyes, swollen fleshy lips, projecting ears
Lombroso’s research
Lombroso examined facial and cranial features of 383 dead convicts and 3839 living convicts. He concluded there was an atavistic form. He concluded these features were key indicators of criminality. Concluded 40% of criminal acts are committed by people with atavistic features.
Evaluation of historical approach (brief)
strength - father of modern criminology however racist undertones
weakness - evidence contradicts link, Goring
weakness - poorly controlled method
strength of historical approach
Lombroso’s work changed the face of the study of crime. Lombroso has been hailed as the ‘father of modern criminology’. He is also credited as shifting the emphasis in crime research away from a moralistic discourse towards a more scientific position which focuses of evolutionary and genetic influences where individuals are not to blame. This suggests that Lombroso made a major contribution to the science of criminology. However, several critics have questioned whether Lombroso’s legacy is entirely positive. Attention has been drawn to the racist undertones within Lombroso’s work. Many of the features that Lombroso identified as atavistic (curly hair, dark skin) are most likely to be found among people of African descent. This suggests that some aspects of his theory were highly subjective rather than objective, influenced by racial prejudices of the time.
weaknesses of historical approach
Evidence contradicts the link between atavism and crime. Goring (1913) ,like Lombroso, set out to establish whether there was anything physically atypical about offenders. After conducting a comparison between 3000 offenders and 3000 non-offenders he concluded that there was no evidence that offenders are a distinct group with unusual facial and cranial characteristics. This challenges the idea that offenders can be physically distinguished from the rest of the population and are therefore unlikely to be a subspecies.
Lombroso’s methods of investigation were poorly controlled. Lombroso failed to control important variables within his research. Unlike Goring, he did not compare his offender sample with a non-offender control group. This could have controlled for an assortment of confounding variables that might have equally explained higher crime rates in certain groups of people. For instance, research has demonstrated links between crime and social conditions such as poverty and poor educational outcomes. These links would explain why offenders were more likely, for example, to be unemployed. This suggests that Lombroso’s research does not meet modern scientific standards
